Although I tend to steer clear of such debates, over at Concurring Opinions David Fagundes (Southwestern) discusses the issue. Semantics aside, partly driving David's interesting post is his concern that:
“'Empirical' is not just a neutral term that happens to describe a particular methodology. It may be understood to connote, rightly or not, a certain degree of rigorousness and exactitude that can set it apart from, and perhaps even above, other methodologies."
While I understand David's point, I'm not sure I buy the premise underneath it. My own view (admittedly, only a datum) is that good scholarship is good scholarship, regardless of the methodological approach. And I am reasonably confident that my take on this is shared by others.